Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute for Government

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Government

Delete Fails WP:CORP/WP:ORG. Not notable. Ave Caesar (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Laudable aims aren't enough. Come back when you have some achievements. Filceolaire (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I deprodded it when I found a couple refs, which are cited in the article now. One about the director, who still hasn't taken over, as this organization is very new. But the other is an article in The Times, entirely about the institute, which is enough to support and expand the article.John Z (talk) 23:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentThe director hasn't taken over and the org is new by your own admission. Wiki is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL and notability can not be established solely based on what an org might do or accomplish or its leadership. --Ave Caesar (talk) 00:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. But reliable sources can be. If this is speculation about anticipated events - and it is not entirely - then it is verifiable speculation, which the policy takes pains to not rule out. What is to be avoided is "original research" speculation. The length of the Times article about the institute is certainly one piece of significant coverage; I maintain that the other various sources, e.g. the one Nsk92 just brought up are, in sum, additional sufficient coverage to make it pass.John Z (talk) 02:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of the Times article. It's rare that something of this nature can make the bar right at the start, but the way it is referred to in the article is sufficient. DGG (talk) 04:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A single article on the subject is not enough to merit notability. WP:ORG states that notability is derived from "significant coverage" - this is clearly not established by only one article.--Ave Caesar (talk) 00:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would have thought think tanks were generally notable, especially ones with notable staff. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep. There is a bit of a WP:CRYSTAL element here (the institute is not yet up and running); there is not a lot of coverage but some of it is fairly detailed and specific. Apart from the Times article cited above and the references given in the article, there is, also, for example, this article in Financial Times from March 2008[1]. Seems to be just enough here to pass WP:N. Nsk92 (talk) 01:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Financial Times article is not about the Institute so much as it is about the act of educating leaders. This does not contribute toward significant coverage. --Ave Caesar (talk) 02:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Independent, reliable sources exist and provide enough information to determine that this org is notable. There is enough information for a short article now, although the present version needs some work. DickClarkMises (talk) 02:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.